brown & hesketh (2014) - the war for talent

4The War for Talent

As in ancient times, talent has become the coin of the realm.Companies that multiply their human talents will prosper.Companies that dont will struggle.

Ed Michaels et al.1

People are being encouraged to invest in a university education in thepromise of improving their chances of becoming a knowledge workerin the future. But while governments eulogize the new economy andthe spread of high skilled, high waged work that they predict, muchof the management literature has focused on the war for talent.2

Numerous books have appeared since the late 1990s with titles includ-ing, The War for Talent, Winning the Talent Wars, The Talent Edge, andHow to Compete in the War for Talent. Some of this exuberance can beexplained by the overheated American economy at centurys end. Butit also reflects current thinking about the knowledge economy, globaleconomic competition and organizational change, and the view thatthese changes are putting more pressure on organizations to attract,develop, and retain truly talented people. Therefore, even at timeswhen labour markets slacken and companies look to reduce theirlabour costs, the assumptions that underscore the talent wars remain.

This discourse around the war for talent (WfT) is important to con-sider because the competition for managerial jobs and careers isshaped by the way companies understand the nature and distribution

of employable people. It also offers an insight into the mindsets ofthose responsible for the recruitment of managers and potential lead-ers in leading edge companies that will be the focus of subsequentchapters. This chapter will examine how organizations interpret andrespond to the WfT discourse, making use of quotations from authorsthat espouse the WfT, company literature,3 and employer interviews.A critical assessment of the WfT and its implications for wider issuesof employability will be the subject of a later chapter, The Wealth ofTalent.

Talent Management: A Strategic Business Challenge

Consultants at McKinsey and Company have perhaps done most topromulgate the war for talent as what they regard as a strategic busi-ness challenge and driver of corporate performance.4 In line with thedominant discourse of the knowledge-driven economy discussed inprevious chapters, it is asserted that knowledge has become moreimportant than money, land, or machines. The value of human capitalhas never been greater, given the increasing value of intangible assetssuch as proprietary networks, brands, intellectual capital, and talent.5

As one of our participating global consultancy companies told us:6

The company doesnt actually own anything, it doesnt actually own anybuildings or cars or lap-tops or anything. The main asset is whats betweenpeoples ears and as a global organization we have the highest proportion ofgraduates than any other, its something like 90 per cent graduates . . . Ourstock is intellectual ability. But not only technicians, meant in the broadestsense, but people that are able to handle clients well, conclude deals, and aregenerally very competent business people.

But as the knowledge economy is seen to widen the potential for moreand more people to be involved in the accumulation, manipulation,and distribution of knowledge, which Michaels and his colleaguesestimate to have increased from 17 to 60 per cent since 1900, competit-ive advantage is believed to depend on the outstanding performance of

The Mismanagement of Talent66

a few. What constitutes talent is being transformed as the acquisition ofknowledge becomes widespread more knowledge workers means itsmore important to get great talent, since the differential value createdby the most talented knowledge workers is enormous.7 LikewiseCohen observes in The Talent Edge, that:

Traditional markets are being redefined, new economies are rapidly develop-ing, and technology and new trade agreements are levelling the playing fieldglobally. In this context, the need for skilled and competitive labor is ongoing.The talent of top performers has become the critical difference between thosecompanies that grow and innovate, and those that falter or merely survive.8

Within this discourse, the value of outstanding talent will continue tomount as the knowledge economy continues to develop. Michaels andhis colleagues are inspired to historical comparisons with WinstonChurchills famous epigraph, Never in the field of human conflictwas so much owed, by so many, to so few. But as they explain:

the war for talent, thankfully, lacks the fire and bloodshed of the Battle ofBritain (sic). Nevertheless, just as the RAF was able to accomplish the impos-sible by segmenting its fighting force, companies can achieve higher per-formance by differentiating between their high, average, and low performers.If more companies had the discipline and courage to differentiate their talentthis way, they, too, could accomplish the impossible.9

Such arguments present the fast track and other ways of differentiat-ing high performing individuals or potential talent as a vital part ofthe armoury of any organization that seeks to prosper in the new econ-omy. It has become imperative that companies try to identify the mosttalented individuals capable of becoming future senior managers andexecutives. In this study, virtually all of the companies interviewed forthis book saw the fast track as a route to senior managerial if not execut-ive leadership positions. Most viewed the fast track as an integral partof their succession planning, and an essential requirement if they wereto attract the best candidates. They also recognized that although thefast track was aimed at university graduates, increasing numbersentering the job market inevitably meant that more of these graduateswould be appointed to jobs that did not offer the same opportunitiesfor rapid career progression. Talking about the fast track, a household

The War for Talent 67

named company in the financial sector told us:

When we recruit we are looking for the future leaders. Weve already started to say that we will recruit less in the future . . . There are lots and lotsof graduates out there if its graduates that you need, who might aspire to bea sales person or a sales team leader but dont see themselves particularlygoing above that level, and you dont want a leadership programme there forthem against their will . . . So we need to open up, its probably an organiza-tional fault that there hasnt been another route in.

For another leading telecommunications company the fast-track pro-gramme existed:

To grow our own talent for the future. At the moment we are developing tech-nology that no one has, it is basically learn as you go . . . its . . . a way of gettingbright graduates in so that we can develop our own talent. So even withinHR, where there isnt a labour shortage of HR officers, youre having some-one coming in at ground level, doing placements within the business andhaving a really good understanding of the company . . . We did a whole mas-sive piece of work . . . to question fundamentally do we need graduates, is itworth making a big investment? The answer was yes, of course . . . but whatdo you see the graduates doing? Bums on seats will lead to the future, wewant to recruit the senior managers, execs and directors of the future . . . sowere actually going to tell the graduates how were going to do that.

However, it was generally believed that there would be greater differen-tiation between graduates in the future which would challenge the equa-tion that graduate recruitment fast track. As an international softwarecompany told us after taking on around 400 university graduates:

I dont want 400 high flyers, because there are not 400 high flying jobs. We arenot an internally aggressive, or internally competitive company . . . There isno, x is better than y, there isnt that feeling in here, there isnt that feeling thatyou have to really, you have to bust a gut, or you have to be seen to be work-ing late. Those people who want to go and work that late, can work that late,but also there are jobs in IT that are not high flying consultancy jobs and soyou dont want, you want a balance which is what we try to get.

Here, the existence of the fast track was seen to reflect the require-ments of a differentiated workforce, but the selection of those who willgo on to great things is viewed as a personal choice about what is


appropriate for the individual rather than a consequence of businessimperatives and problems of career blockages in lean organizations.10

The Rising Demand for High-Calibre Managerial Talent

In the WfT the demand for high-calibre managers reflects a more chal-lenging business context, doing more with less, more quickly andwithin a global environment. Companies today need managers whocan respond to these challenges through enterprise, creativity, andleadership. This demand for managerial talent is evident in therequirements companies make of those looking for fast-track manage-rial appointments. Corporate brochures and websites proclaim thatthey are the best company to work for, but that only the best candi-dates are likely to have the personal capital that they are looking for:

What matters to us is the potential to reach a senior level fast. Everyone whojoins us must be able to offer flexibility, enthusiasm, commercial acumen,independence, initiative, communication skills, an enquiring mind and theability to plan, organise, analyse and evaluate. Teamworkingon a local andinternational levelis vital to the success of projects, so the way you relate topeople is as important as the way you manage responsibility . . . were lookingfor tomorrows managers and technical specialists. Real decision-makers. Sowe need to employ innovative, self starting people who can think on their feetand handle responsibility. (Adtranz)

We believe that our ambitious plans can only be achieved by attracting anddeveloping the very best talent, who bring enthusiasm and commitment tothe service they provide to their clients, as well as to their own personal devel-opment . . . our competitive advantage comes from our people . . . Work atErnst & Young is demanding, we aim not only to meet but to exceed ourclients expectations. The type of people who can achieve this will have . . .been involved in a variety of activities at university but have juggled theirtime well and consistently met deadlines. Not been satisfied with tried andtested methods but will have continuously tried to improve things andenjoyed being part of a changing environment . . . The most striking character-istic of people at Ernst & Young is their strong sense of individuality and thewide variety of skills, knowledge and experience they possess. (Ernst andYoung)


Our success flows from the people making up the team, and our futuredepends on attracting and retaining those who share our eagerness to chal-lenge the status quo. So we offer challenging responsibilities and ampledevelopment prospects . . . We know that maintaining our position of worldleadership depends on having the best people working with us. (Vodafone)

Our people will always be Logicas biggest asset. In an environment thatfizzes with a unique combination of technical innovation and creative flair,its their talent, inspiration and sense of adventure that drive the business for-ward . . . Thats why whenever its time for a new member to join the team, welook for those who share our inquisitive and resourceful approach . . .However powerful the technology, what sets us apart from the competition isthe talent and energy of our people. Our success is driven by dynamic,resourceful individuals who refuse to compromise and constantly strive forever more innovative solutions . . . There are certain things we look for in ouremployees. We like them to think for themselves, so initiative is important. Asis commitment. We expect 100% at all times. (Logica)

Were looking for talented, confident people who know where theyre going.People who are not content to be a cog in a big machine, but want to be lead-ing from the front in an organization that is changing lives. (National HealthService, NHS)

You will offer a strong and consistent record of high academic success. Youwill be able to demonstrate you have used your intelligence to solve prob-lems, find creative solutions and use excellent judgement; think strategicallyand analytically, and be more confident and ambitious than the majority ofyour peers. We are keen to attract high-quality, highly literate and numerateapplicants from a variety of degree subject backgrounds. (Robson Rhodes)

We have established a reputation for technical excellence through continuinginnovation in pioneering technologies and have only achieved this by attract-ing, developing and retaining some of the best, most flexible talent available.We employ outstanding individuals with technical disciplines to work inmeaningful roles with a bias in . . . technical and product development andmanufacturing, with occasional opportunities in one of the support profes-sions. (RayChem)

Meeting the Demand for Talent when the Career Bargain has been Broken

The discourse of the talent wars also highlights new rules of engage-ment as corporate-downsizing since the late 1980s broke the traditional


covenant that traded job security for loyalty.11 Organizations nolonger rely on nurturing talent based on long-term employment forthe reasons noted in Chapter Two. But at the same time that compan-ies were demanding greater flexibility over employment contracts,there has also been growing concerns about how organizations aregoing to retain their talented managers. According to Woodruffe, theindependence of knowledge workers is . . . a consequence of the delib-erate moves by firms to empower them and make them free.12

Breaking the psychological contract of security for loyalty removedmany of the constraints and old taboos associated with frequent job-hopping, as Michaels and colleagues noted, it had become a badge ofhonour to have multiple companies on ones resume.13 The full impli-cations of this shift to a market-driven employment relationship14 iscaptured by Tulgan in his observation that:

if you create a free market for anything, including talent, the people with themost value to sell are going to leverage it for everything its worth. And thatswhats happening . . . Success now is defined by the open market, and thatmeans the sky is the limit. No single organizational hierarchy puts a cap onyour potential. Go wherever opportunities take you. That is the essence of thefree-agent mind-set.15

This has much in common with those who characterize the US and UKlabour markets in terms of winner-takes-all.16 But the polarization of incomes that is associated with the growing disparities betweenwinners and losers is not understood in negative terms, as such dis-parities are assumed to reflect the market value and contributions ofindividuals that had been artificially restricted by outdated agree-ments that limited the remuneration of individual employees forsocial or political reasons.17 But it is not only income that is beingleveraged, as Michaels and his colleagues also observe, more thanever, talented individuals have the negotiating leverage to ratchet uptheir expectations for their careers. The price of talent is rising.18

All for the Best

In the WfT how companies attract, hire, and manage talent has there-fore assumed paramount importance. Recruitment assumes considerable


importance, ensuring that they recruit the right people. As Michaelsand his colleagues once more inform us, excellent talent managementhas become a crucial source of competitive advantage. Companies thatdo a better job of attracting, developing, exciting, and retaining theirtalent will gain more than their share of this crucial and scarce resourceand will boost their performance dramatically.19 They must do thisaccording to the new realities summarized by Michaels and his teamin the following terms:20

The old reality The new reality

People need companies Companies need peopleMachines, capital, and geography are Talented people are the competitive

the competitive advantage advantageBetter talent makes some difference Better talent makes a huge differenceJobs are scarce Talented people are scarceEmployees are loyal and jobs are People are mobile and their

secure commitment is short termPeople accept the standard package People demand

they are offered much more

A striking feature of this discourse is in the way in which work ispackaged to appeal to potential fast-track employees. This is farremoved from the 95, keep your nose clean and dont rock the boatworld of the corporate bureaucrat. Employers are attuned to whatthey perceive the best are looking for from prospective employers,sometimes informed by focus groups discussions or surveys of newhires. To enhance their appeal the very essence of a fast-track job istransformed within the virtual world of recruitment websites. Youwill find little about the constraints on individual interests andopportunities in the corporate pursuit for profit. For those that makeit onto the fast track, work is consumption. The transition from uni-versity to work is reversed. Those with real talent can leave behind alife of endeavour for which there may have been little purposebeyond a good grade and enter a world where one is given realresponsibility and where ones creative energies can be releasedwithin a fast-moving environment that offers almost limitless opportunities and scope for self-development. This includes chal-lenging responsibilities, teamwork, and friendship, along with a


competitive salary:

As a company, were aiming as high as we can get. We think and operate glob-ally. We see no limits to what we can achieve. Are you equally ambitious? Canyou handle the challenges youll meet on the way? . . . Youll be working withcolleagues from every continent and culture. So what does that mean for you?A world of opportunity. Quite literally, limitlessyou can go as high and asfar as you want. (BAE Systems)

Do you want to be responsible for your own business area, have interestingcareer prospects both at home and abroad? Do you want the chance to showinitiative and creativity in a fast changing business environment? If so, thenyou are the person we want to join our team at Adtranz. (Adtranz)

Today youll start building your career. Tomorrow too. In fact, at Ernst &Young youll never stop. Our global learning programme ensures youll con-tinue to develop your business thinking throughout your career. Its a com-mitment we make to you the day you join us. In return, we know youll helpus develop innovative solutions for the worlds great companies. Throughteaming, learning and leadership, at Ernst & Young you can achieve so muchmore. Why stop now? (Ernst & Young)

Logica is not like most organizations. The buzz, the excitement, the sense ofadventure combine to create a more stimulating environment . . . Discoverhow you can contribute to the fizz and to the creative vision underlying oursuccess . . . Do you like the excitement of working at a start up, but dont wantto take on the risks? Logica may be the right place for you. (Logica)

Show us you can excel and well show you an open road upwards. (HobsonsPublishing)

The reward of a fast-track appointment is the preservation and devel-opment of ones individuality. They are more than a cog in themachine, but someone whose efforts, skills, and talents could make adifference to the company. Gone are the days of the off-the-shelf careerpackage with neat diagrams of what can be expected of a fast-tracktrainee at various stages of their career. They are now greeted with anindividual development plan that will include various training mod-ules usually over a one or two-year period. Some of this training willbe generic, focusing on such things as communication and presenta-tion skills, project management, or working towards professionalexaminations. Other aspects of training will be specifically tailored tothe individuals needs based on discussions with a mentor (who isusually a senior member of staff) or someone in the human resource


management team. The message is clear: you are a valued individual,there are outstanding opportunities awaiting you, but you must takeresponsibility for managing your employability.

This presents a conundrum for organizations against a backdrop ofnot for life employment. In a UK survey of 362 adverts for graduateappointments in 2001 we found only one explicit promise of job secur-ity. But we found little of the celebratory rhetoric of the free agentshifting jobs and adding value to their CVs, when we spoke to thosedoing the hiring at the grass roots. These companies were willing toinvest a lot of resources in the training and development of their fast-trackers. At the same time it was acknowledged that few organiza-tions could honestly say that they offered a career for life.

Indeed, this study highlights a major tension between the celebra-tory rhetoric of market individualism that drives the WfT, and theneeds of businesses (rather than financial markets) to develop the pro-ductive capabilities of the workforce in a collective enterprise. Manycompanies have become increasingly aware of the downside of down-sizing and the market-driven workforce. There is considerable scepti-cism about being able to buy in able managers and executives as andwhen they are required. Many commented on the importance of or-ganizational culture and institutional memory. A lot of the rhetoric aboutcorporate change has often portrayed institutional memory as trainedincapacity. This fits well with ideas about the weightless economy andthe explosion of business start-ups in Silicon Valley.21 But most com-panies need people, especially at senior levels, to understand andshare the values of the organization. They need people who have seensimilar problems before, people who know how to manage the processof problem solving, even if the specific problem requires a uniquesolution. These companies are concerned about succession planningand place considerable value on growing their own talent:22

We expect it to happen because history tells us that it will and that is certainlywhat I was . . . told to do, if you want to get on in your career you dont stay witha company any more than two years, but as a recruiting company we dontwant that, and we certainly dont encourage people to only stay a couple ofyears. We provide a twelve month training programme so if we lose themtwelve months after that it is an awful lot of money for next to no payback . . .We have suffered at about the three/four years level because they will do train-ing for a year, do one, maybe two jobs, and then say, Now what? But we cer-tainly dont encourage people to go after a couple or three years, we want somepeople to stay so we have got the experience. (Manufacturing Sector)


We have gone from, You manage your own career, to, Well, actually, theresa risk in that, in that you lose some of your top people which you haveinvested heavily in, and its a bit daft to lose them if they dont really chooseto go and they could be a good asset for the future. (Financial Sector)

You know some people stay over five years and are really happy and we dontreally want to lose them at all . . . I think it is a mixture of graduates. You doget some graduates who are jobs for life and I think where that has happenedit is the ambitious ones because they can see how much scope there is withinthe organization. There are some graduates at the moment, who are reallymaking things happen for themselves which is really wonderful to see. Somepeople will always see it as a stepping stone and thats fine, I guess differentambitious people have different ways of how they want their future to be.(Telecommunications Sector)

In one of the information technology companies it was believed to bevirtually impossible to keep people because of the opportunitieswithin the wider job market. However, retrenchments in the IT sectorhave reduced these opportunities and increased the risks associatedwith moving to another company. However, this organization hastried to make a virtue of the free agent mindset:

I think a certain amount of churn is very healthy and we get other people infrom organizations after a couple of years. Obviously we want to hold on toour high flyers but we cant. I think people especially in this industry will dotheir two/three years and move around and generally graduates look at port-folio careers now, the idea of a job for life just doesnt exist anymore and theydont want to do that . . . but it is not so much of an issue now as the economyis a bit tighter, not like two years ago when they were just recruiting like mad. . . On a plus side, we tend to use it to sell careers in the company because youcan have a portfolio career without leaving, which is quite handy to do. I dont necessarily think it is a bad thing at all as long as you have the rightstaff at the right time . . . the fact that they are going to go in three or four yearstime. As long as you can deliver and you are always going to want to hangonto your top people, that is my personal view and it is not a corporate view.(IT Consultants)

Some of the employers were also concerned about how to manage theexpectations of graduates, who were typically seen to have inflatedideas about the speed of their ascent into leadership roles and theiroverall worth to the business world. The fact that this was, at least inpart, a consequence of the way companies presented themselves as


dream-makers for the chosen few, escaped most of them:

We dont call it a fast track. But essentially who else makes someone head ofgraduate recruitment after 12 months? So it is quite a fast track. But we dontcall it as such . . . if you call it fast track you are then managing expectations.Some 21 year olds thinking they can take on the world and think they canbecome a senior manager at the age of 22. So I think there is something inthere about managing expectations and also not pissing off the staff that youhave. We have an internal promotion policy and graduates . . . have a veryhigh profile so therefore there is opportunity to move up faster. Its down toindividuals. (Telecommunications Sector)

Talent: A Limited Commodity?

In the WfT discourse it is not only assumed that talent has becomemore important, but also that it remains in limited supply.23 Yet, thosewho advance such views find it difficult to define highly talentedmanagers. In general terms, talent is often seen as the sum of a per-sons abilitieshis or her intrinsic gifts, skills, knowledge, experience,intelligence, judgement, attitude, character, and drive. It also includeshis or her ability to learn and grow.24 It is then acknowledged thatdefining great managerial talent is a bit more difficult. A certain partof talent eludes description: You simply know it when you see it,25

like when senior managers and executives look in the mirror!It is then acknowledged that there is no universal definition of great

managerial talent because it will vary depending on organizationalcontext, including the nature of the business, organizational culture,and management style. Each company is, therefore, encouraged to:

understand the specific talent profile that is right for it . . . We can say, how-ever, that managerial talent is some combination of a sharp strategic mind,leadership ability, emotional maturity, communications skills, the ability toattract and inspire other talented people, entrepreneurial instincts, functionalskills, and the ability to deliver results.26

Ultimately we are told that talent is a code for the most effectiveleaders and managers at all levels who can help a company fulfil itsaspirations and drive its performance.27 Although far from satisfactory


at least Michaels and his colleagues have a shot at a definition. Otherssuch as Tulgan see little point in trying to define talent because:

You know very well that a single truly great person on your team is worthtwo, three, four, or five mediocre ones. The difference in value is hard to quan-tify, but the truth of the matter is clear: Nobody is more valuable than thatperson you can rely on without hesitation. That person almost always gets thejob done right and ahead of schedule, takes exactly the right amount of ini-tiative without over-stepping, makes the tough judgement calls as well as theeasy ones, and makes it look routine.28

The nature of talent is central to the ideas in this book and it will besystematically explored in a later chapter. Here, we will limit our-selves to considering the nature of this discourse and how the com-panies that we interviewed responded to some of its key elements.Clearly, companies are being encouraged to develop and invest insomething they have little idea how to identify and specific to eachcompany. Moreover, while Michaels et al. define talent in terms of per-formance, fast-track recruitment is as much about identifying poten-tial as current performance. Yet, most of the companies interviewed inthis study were reasonably confident that the focus on behaviouralcompetence enabled them to define and capture what they were look-ing for, as we will show in the following chapter.

Managerial Talent: Born or Made?

Despite these problems of definition it is also confidently asserted thatthere is a limited pool of talent capable of rising to senior managerialpositions. Indeed this reflects a long-standing assumption in Westernculture that there is a limited pool of ability from which any given gen-eration can draw.29 The fast track has traditionally been assumed toreflect innate differences in the capabilities of employees. Tight restric-tions on the numbers of university students for much of the last cen-tury reinforced the assumption that there was a limited pool of talentcapable of benefiting from a university education. Naturally it wasfrom this elite that people were chosen for accelerated career progres-sion within the corporate hierarchies of the time. However, the expan-sion of higher education since the late 1980s has made it very difficultto sustain this view of a cognitive elite, as the limited pool of abilitycomes to resemble an ocean of untapped talent. We have already seen


that employers now argue that the demonstration of cognitive abilityis only one aspect of what it takes to become a senior manager in inno-vative, fast-moving businesses. As one employer told us, today youhave to be across the board and not just clever.

Assumptions about innate qualities are extended to include drive,resilience, confidence, and creativity in definitions of managerial tal-ent. This spiritual dimension of power30 echoes the Darwinian searchfor the fittest personalities with the appropriate personal, people,and task skills. The growing demand for managers of the future toexhibit charismatic qualities has done little to alter the Darwinianview of most recruiters. Whereas in bureaucratic organizations therecruitment process was explicitly targeted on the search for raw intellectual talent and technical expertise, it is now extended toinclude the gift of charisma. This is clearly an example of social giftsbeing translated into natural gifts.31 This does not mean that recruitersall think that leaders are born rather than made. Indeed, socialDarwinism does not depend on innate differences in genetic capacitiesbut the drive and moral courage of individuals to adapt to their envir-onment to become business or political leaders. As Graham WilliamSumner noted in the late nineteenth century, class distinctions simplyresult from the different degrees of success with which men haveavailed themselves of the chances which were presented to them.32

Many of the recruiters we spoke to shared the view that drive, per-sistence, and self-reliance are integral to managerial success as we willdiscuss in the chapter on picking winners. Most also shared the viewthat the rise of mass higher education had not increased the pool ofmanagerial and leadership talent. Some complained about the poorquality of some candidates:

We do seem to be getting more people coming through and youll say, Well,who the hell was that that I just had to sit with for half an hour? Becauseeither they talked a complete load of rubbish or they spoke so quickly youcouldnt understand a word of it, or they just couldnt get the sentences outand you think, These are graduates! I think, Is this me? Am I expecting toomuch? Have I been in the job too long? But Im assured it is not me . . . theacademic level has slipped and . . . that would be carried through the univer-sities, because if they are starting lower they cant expect them to get up towhere they were. On the other side of it, the social skills dont stack up to me,because . . . graduates now have done so much more than anybody that I wentto school with . . . I dont know perhaps they decide they will travel for six months but they are not being quite as extensive or whatever it is but


maybe the bigger group has only come about by the bottom-line droppingdown a bit. (Manufacturing Sector)

Despite such views a major concern of other recruiters was the largenumbers applying for fast-track appointments. In the financial sectorwe were told:

The quality is definitely still there. There is no less quality . . . On the basis of45,000 applications, we very easily get what were looking for, Im not sosure theres a war . . . for talent . . . at this stage, its more a war of turning themaway.

There was also considerable ambiguity about whether managerial tal-ent is born or made. Recourse to nature is seductive because itremoves social and ethical responsibilities from those who need tomake difficult judgements about the future careers and life-chances ofothers. If differences between candidates reflect innate characteristicsthen the fast track represents a legitimate way of trying to capture thenature of things. Whereas, if employers are making judgementsabout differences in social experiences, it raises awkward questions asmanagement and leadership skills could be developed through train-ing and other learning opportunities. This ambiguity was captured inthe following discussion about whether leaders are born or made:

We hope to see someone that has the potential before we want to invest.

So they are born not made?

[laughter] Is that the time! Ive no idea but I think our process works on theassumption that they are born. You spot that potential and then you developit. I think thats the assumption we work on and whether its right or not I dont know . . . they have been born but there are other things they have doneas weve been saying about developing them. You would hope to see thatsomething and then develop it if theyve been born with it . . . Theyve doneother things that just build on that because there is something innate aboutthem that, I want to go on, I want to be the leader of that senior managementteam, to go on their expedition to the Himalayas. I want to do this, and I wantto do that, and I want to be part of this group. There is just something, and I think drive kept coming through to me when you were talking, you knowabout the drive to go out there and find my placement rather than keep goingto their mentor and keep asking where do you think I should go next? Thedrive to want to do better, the drive and the aspiration of I want to be there,I want the challenge. So I think everything in life then just builds . . . Its like


rolling a snowball, you build it up . . . so perhaps we dont work on the ethosthat they are born but we work on the ethos that by the time they come to usthey should have developed something of themselves that we can spot . . .Does it have to be one of these, it could be both, some could be born, somecould be made. (Financial Sector)

Diversity: Tapping the Pool for Talent?

Within the literature on the war for talent there is remarkably littlemention of cultural diversity. Michaels and colleagues have only onereference to diversity and that is in a case-study description of a com-pany that had tried to broaden its recruitment profile. However, anextensive literature on diversity issues aimed at HRM professionalshas emerged in the last twenty years. There are numerous definitionsof diversity but all are based on a respect for individual and cultural differences. Kandola and Fullerton suggest that the fundamental argument for managing diversity is the benefit derived from recruiting,retaining and promoting the best people regardless of their background,ethnicity, accent, sex, hair colour, or other individual characteristics.33

The advocates of greater cultural diversity within organizationshave not been slow in making the business case. Individual differ-ences are championed as a source of competitive advantage becausecompanies that diversify staffing are more likely to reflect the profileof their customers or clients. It is also seen to offer companies greatervariation in the way they handle new and novel circumstances, orwhen they are competing in international markets. Greenslade sug-gests that cultural diversity creates an environment in which . . . thetalent and attributes of people from different backgrounds and her-itages are fully valued, utilised and developed. Such an environment,we believe, can achieve superior business results.34

The question of cultural diversity challenges organizations to exam-ine their assumption about the best and what they look like. WhileJohnson and Redmans conclusion is somewhat premature, thatorganizations that operate globally have come to recognize that talentis by no means restricted to prime-age Caucasian males!,35 virtuallyall the organizations that participated in our research have bought intothe rhetoric, if not the realities, of managing diversity. Most companies


have developed explicit policy statements on diversity that are fea-tured prominently in their recruitment literature. Deliberate attemptsare made by most organizations to ensure that their websites andbrochures avoid the message, if you are not a white male or femalewith an Oxbridge degree dont bother applying for a job here becauseyou dont stand a chance of getting in. The widespread use of per-sonal profiles of successful fast-trackers is used to convey the messagethat they recruit a diverse range of people. These profiles will ofteninclude an Asian woman, Afro-Caribbean man, and someone from anew university.

In part this is a pragmatic response to the problem of competing forthe best that are assumed to be concentrated in a small number ofelite universities. For organizations that are looking for large numbersof new hires or who feel that they are not at the top of the peckingorder of companies that offer starting salaries in excess of 30,000 ayear, they have an incentive to broaden their net (and their organiza-tions appeal).

The logic of this approach is neatly captured in the advice offered byWoodruffe. In the search for talent he suggests that a winning answeris to look in the less obvious places and overcome the obvious temp-tations to confine ones efforts to good departments of better univer-sities.36 He recommends that companies widen their net in the trawlfor talent:

If the organization has concluded it needs to recruit greater diversity, it needsto make itself attractive to such people, quite apart from protecting them oncethey have joined. To make itself attractive, perhaps it needs to present itself aswelcoming of differences and not rigidly defined in terms of its organiza-tional personality. The more rigid the definition, the more it will restrict itselfto people like us. It therefore needs to present images in its recruitment lit-erature of diverse people who have been successful employees.37

Some organizations have clearly taken this advice:

Weve just got a diversity sponsor . . . because were . . . quite young, its a bitsophisticated for us! With graduate recruitment its not something we dis-courage but not something we actively encourage. So its difficult becausewith something like the brochure . . . Im always conscious that it is slightlystaged. I make sure we have a cross section of representatives so it can be any-thing from having a white engineer but doing yoga, which is challenging the


stereotypes. Making sure we have a female Asian person in our adverts anda male Asian person in our adverts and in our brochure. (TelecommunicationsSector)

This year we have gone quite in-depth on the website, having case studies thatwe are going to swap around throughout the year . . . someone says abouttheir typical day and there is a picture on there so it is trying to make it a lotmore familiar to people . . . because it is hard as an undergraduate to actuallyimagine yourself having finally got through this process and in a job. So to tryand make it appeal a little bit more and [suggest] there are people here doingthis, and this is the university they went to, and somebody might think oh Iwent to that university and they are obviously looking for people like me.(Manufacturing Sector)

But what was firmly engrained in the minds of HR staff was that theselection of the best employees was paramount. Actively promotingdiversity was encouraged to increase the range of applicants but therewas a unanimous view that they would always take the best candidate:

I did the personnel undergrad interview and sat there and talked to an Asiangirl who had got through the first stage . . . she didnt get through at the nextstage, but she didnt get through for the same reasons that other people didntget through, it wasnt because her colour was the wrong one. I mean we arebased in the Midlands where we are surrounded by all sorts of different-coloured people, and short and tall and fat and thin and all the rest of it, andto me . . . the colour of your skin is the same as whether you are fat, thin, tallor short. So we havent got a published policy . . . but we do look at the num-bers . . . to make sure that what we are doing is correct. But we wont go outand positively say this is who we are going to go for. (Manufacturing Sector)

The issues organizations are grappling with in respect to diversity,recruitment, and talent management are also captured in the follow-ing discussion with two female HR professionals. They begin by recognizing the problem of implementing diversity policies whenexecutive board members reflect a legacy of Oxbridge Man:

Suddenly weve got a new Equality and Diversity Director who is very vis-ible and we talk about E & D in everything we do . . . I suppose from a gradu-ate recruitment perspective, if youre just looking at pure race and age, wehave a fairly good record which might balance out the rest of the organizationwhich is not that good, but you know I guess it could still be better. So theresa promise out there really and weve got a top board representative of eachminority group, so there will be somebody who represents disability,


somebody who represents sexual orientation, so we have key people, reallykey people. Its amazing because when they show the video of the peoplesigning the agenda, you look at them and theyre all white male, 45 or fromcertain universities and youre thinking yeah thats great ha, ha, ha, so . . .some staff see this as a bit of a joke. (Financial Sector)

Although employees are quick to read the implicit values that seniorstaff convey through their actions rather than policy pronounce-ments,38 hiring practices are genuinely seen to be a key area wherediversity issues can make a difference:

We change the universities that were going to target or go out on our milkround to. We advertise in differing publications to attract different minoritygroups . . . It does affect how we market, it does affect the universities that wego to and it does affect the training we give our assessors, and the assessmentprocess we put our candidates through. There was some talk in the past thatwe might have given a big focus on people who have had a year out and gonetravelling and the experiences that they have had and how that adds to theapplication form, whether its fiction or not but of course youll get some eth-nic minorities who are very family orientated and therefore wouldnt havedreamt of having a year out and going off travelling somewhere, so haventgot the same experiences. So I know those issues have been taken into accountso just to make sure that youre not disadvantaging a certain group of people.(Financial Sector)

However, the greater focus on the graduate leadership programmewithin this company, require them to be even more selective aboutwho they hire. This brings into sharp relief the problem of diversifyingthe workforce, especially at senior levels. As the numbers of applica-tions grow as more people enter the job market with a university edu-cation, the pressure on companies such as this to screen out largernumbers at an early stage in the hiring process inevitably mounts.Consequently, any candidate that does not have twenty-two UCASpoints at Advanced Level (equivalent of BBC) and an upper-secondclass degree will be immediately eliminated despite the fact that manynon-traditional university students fail, especially at the first hurdle:

I think . . . it will change for next year . . . I think we will have to stick to the 22UCAS Points and be more rigorous and maybe more ruthless around theentry requirements. Because if were going to be looking for less, and we arewanting the best, then why are we wavering and doing what we do althoughwere trying to do the right thing by the candidates. (Financial Sector)


Therefore, while most employers presented the commitment to diver-sity and to hire the best as a winwin scenario that enabled organ-izations to select from a broader range of applicants, there was also anawareness that these could be conflicting priorities. As an HR directorin a major financial institution observed, Oxford and Cambridge stillgive you overall the best candidates. What it doesnt give you is diver-sity. And you cant do the two things.

The War for Reputational Capital

Finally, the war for talent is presented as a rational response to thechanging demands of a knowledge-driven economy. The basic mes-sage is that a talented few matter more. This has led organizations inboth the public and private sector to find ways of attracting andretaining the best talent available. Such ideas will be subjected to crit-ical scrutiny in a subsequent chapter, but it is important to note thatmuch of the behaviour of companies in respect to the issues coveredin this chapter is irrational, in the sense that its relationship to raisingproductivity and profitability remains unclear, if not counterproduct-ive. There is a herd mentality within graduate recruitment, as no com-pany wants to risk losing out on a share of the best:

I think companies have got to feel that they are in competition. We are all outthere for what people would see as the better/brighter graduates, we dontwant the very top ones because we know we couldnt keep them . . . But on thewhole if you take a generic group of companies and a generic group of grads,I think there will be a set in the middle there that we are all fighting over. Ithink more and more companies are now looking for that finite group of grad-uates although the figures are showing more people are going to university,in our experience there isnt a bigger group of people in the middle . . . and Ithink the smaller/medium sized companies also seem to be looking for grad-uates now. (Manufacturing Sector)

Indeed, investments in hiring have become closely related to the mar-keting and branding of companies:

Did you see the Times top 100 graduate employers? We shot up the poll inthat. Now whether thats a good thing or a bad thing, its been bandied


around internally as being a wonderful thing. Im not so sure whether it is orisnt. Were in the top group and . . . if you look who was around us it tends tobe the investment banks or the consultancies . . . That probably says somethingabout the sort of people were trying to attract. But then it also says somethingabout their aspirations when they come here . . . You become really employ-able after two years. So you can leave if you want and go somewhere elsealthough they dont, but they could. (Financial Sector)

Being an employer of choice was seen as a way of branding the com-pany as well as a way of attracting the best applicants. Yet, it was alsoacknowledged that playing this reputational game in competitionwith other companies may simply up the stakes required to attractthose defined as the best, while recognizing that this may do little toprepare the company for the future:

So therere all these reasons to join, but . . . does that meet our business needs going forward? Does it bring you the people that youre looking for as leaders or are you always trying to keep them with a different sweetener? I think the volume with which we recruit is just far too high. (Financial Sector)

It is also widely believed that many of those who connect to companywebsites may not finish up working for the company, but they may befuture customers or clients. Where brand recognition is related tobeing a market leader, the best companies want to be seen to berecruiting the best talent, as these are mutually reinforcing. This rep-resents a positional competition between companies that make it dif-ficult for them to break ranks, apart from when they want to offer evenmore sweeteners to the talented few. However, at least some employ-ers question the over-the-top way in which some organizations wereattempting to attract more marketable graduates:

We went for a very plain website this year, because last year we thought it was too much fun in a way. We went just for very plain, the black and white,and then the pictures so it wasnt all jazzy . . . Personally I . . . dont like thewhole sort of, Come and work for us, were crazy and here is a picture of ushaving a drink out together, we have fun. Because to me that really turnedme off and I would just want to know whats it all about, does it convince me?Is it professional? Talking to students, a lot of them said, We dont like thegimmicks. We dont produce a flyer that is an origami swan . . . You have tounfold it, and to read it you had to turn it around and flip it over and people


just said, You know, we dont want that, we are not that stupid. We know thatit is still the same contents. (Manufacturing Sector)

Managerial Talent: A Historical Interlude

Before concluding this chapter it is worth considering the historicallegacy of the war for talent. In Reinhard Bendixs classic study of Workand Authority in Industry he examined the ideologies of managementin the course of industrialization in England, Russia, and the UnitedStates.39 In this study he drew a distinction between the ideology ofthe entrepreneur and the ideology of management. In the nineteenth cen-tury the entrepreneurial ideology in Victorian England was based onthe pursuit of self-interest alongside the Christian virtues of hardwork, frugality, and prudence. In many respects the individual wascut free of Feudal obligations to fend for himself and his familyagainst a backdrop of harsh economic necessity. As Bendix suggested:

These virtues of moral self-reliance and self-development became a nationalcreed where, as in the American environment, their practical application inthe pursuit of material gain was readily identified with the conquest of aContinent. In the United States the businessman became a hero whose verymaterial gain was celebrated as a moral victory. The people at large wereadmonished to emulate him, each man in competition with his fellows.40

Bendix argued that this ideology remained unproblematic so long asit did not have negative consequences for labour management. Butwith the rise of large-scale factory production, trade unionism, and thebureaucratization of business enterprise, new ways had to be found tobuttress the employers authority and to ensure the work efficiency ofeach employee. The answer was found in scientific managementwhere the moral exhortations of the past gave way to scientific plan-ning and the monitoring of employee behaviour. The craft knowledgeof independent traders was transferred into the hands of managers,but at the same time the burden of responsibility for output andimprovements in productivity also shifted from the individual workerto management.


The growth of personnel specialists reflected these changing respon-sibilities as managers became increasingly concerned with the emo-tional and social factors which affect an individuals outlook as well ashis or her output. This led Antonio Gramsci to reflect on the wayindustrialists including Henry Ford had become increasingly con-cerned about the sexual affairs of their employees and their familyarrangements.41

The shift from an entrepreneurial to management ideology did notextinguish the importance of individual striving, struggle, and achieve-ment, which came to depend on academic credentials and progresswithin bureaucratic career structures.42 But the public appraisal of thebusiness leader had shifted from a celebration of individual humanendeavour against all the odds, to the celebration of an economic sys-tem that enabled people to fulfil their opportunities and aspirations.

In these circumstances the ideal image of the entrepreneur as a risk-taker and innovator was gradually:

superseded by the ideal image of the manager as the skilful organizer of co-operative effort. And the fashionable vocabulary of motives by which theeconomic conduct of Everyman is explained has shifted from competitivestriving to the desire to stand well with ones fellows, from hard work as avirtue to work as a source of satisfaction, and from the desire for gain to thepersonal emotions and attitudes which underlie that desire.43

This discussion reveals that in many respects we have gone full circle. The WfT has much in common with the nineteenth-centuryentrepreneurial ideology. The emphasis on individual employabilityand talent re-asserts the importance of self-reliance based on hardwork and moral exhortations, urging people to use their talents to thebest of their abilities. The business leader as hero has also returned, asTulgan extravagantly claims, The free agent is the hero of the neweconomy: She is adaptable, technoliterate, innovative, self-reliant, andentrepreneurial.44 However, the rugged individualism associatedwith the entrepreneurial ideology has been smoothed over. Hard workis not presented as a grim battle for economic survival, but a source ofsatisfaction and self-fulfilment. For those that can rise above the massranks of employees work is an expression of individuality. As we havenoted the glittering prizes held out to the knowledge elite offer more


than money and status, but rapid progression to senior positions arebased on the development of leadership skills offering self-actualization.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have shown that the WfT presents a view of eco-nomic competition and corporate efficiency based on the assertionthat human resources are a decisive facet of competitive advantage,and that there are significant differences in the contributions of mem-bers of the workforce that are reflected in their remuneration. The WfTtakes human capital arguments a step further by suggesting that theefforts of a few matter more than ever and therefore companies shouldseek to identify outstanding talent and do whatever it takes to attractand retain it. In other words, the technical imperatives of organizationsmake it crucial to get the most talented people into key managerialand leadership roles.

While there is evidence of these companies sharing some of theassumptions of the WfT, such as the view that the human side ofenterprise has become more important and that there is a restrictedpool of talent from which to draw, there is also evidence that some ofthese organizations are aware of the downside of downsizing andrevolving door employment policies.

The WfT reflects the major paradox that in the knowledge-driveneconomy recruitment depends far less on the knowledge of candi-dates. This is not because knowledge is unimportant, but ratherbecause many more people entering the competition for managerialand professional jobs have met the knowledge requirements associ-ated with a university degree.45 As we will argue in Chapter Eight thishas exploded one of the great myths of the age, that there is a limitedpool of talent capable of advanced academic study or capable of man-aging in a work context. In theory, this should be a source of liberationfor companies that are no longer restricted to recruit from the genepool of previous elites.

But despite much talk about diversity being a new source of com-petitive advantage the discourse is dominated by the war for talent.Here, we can see how the idea of a knowledge economy points in twodirections. On the one hand, it points to the need for diversity and todevelop the talents of all, and on the other, to an even greater emphasis


on outstanding talents, and the contribution and development of afew. We have shown that the latter informs the WfT. This has led to afocus on how to recruit and retain the best and whether this can beachieved in a fair and efficient manner. It also leads to an examinationof the secrets of success, focusing on the characteristics of those mostlikely to win the competition for elite jobs. These are important issuesthat will be addressed in the following chapters. But it is important notto lose sight of the broader significance of this discussion, as it raisesissues about the way jobs are defined and opportunities and careersare structured. We need to challenge the cultural assumptions onwhich the WfT rests. This raises questions about the positional ratherthan the technical division of labour, that is how companies organizethe workforce not only in terms of discrete tasks that need to be ful-filled but how these are organized, labelled, and rewarded. In theindustrial bureaucracies of the twentieth century the pyramid of occu-pational status was based on differences in expert knowledge.46 But asmore people gain access to university credentials, the knowledge gapwithin the workforce has narrowed, and new ways have to be foundto legitimate what amounts to increasing inequalities in the return oninvestments in education and training. The emphasis on outstandingtalent, value-added performance, and market-driven employmentthat characterize the WfT can therefore be seen as an attempt not onlyto reproduce existing employment relations, but also to shape andlegitimate new ones at a time when the workforce is becoming moreeducated.

It can also be shown that employability for fast-track managerialjobs is shaped by the positional competition with other companies toattract, recruit, and retain the best. Our argument is that the wft isnot the result of the poor quality of university education. The posi-tional competition described in previous chapters is not restricted toindividuals in the scramble for tough-entry jobs. It equally applies toleading edge companies in a bid to position themselves favourably inthe competition for the best graduates, that may have more to dowith the reputational capital of companies than issues of productiveefficiency.

Here, we have examined the assumptions that shape corporate atti-tudes to human resourcing, why they maintain a fast track for somegraduates even though there is a mass supply of higher educatedemployees. We have also explored why some employers believe that


despite the rise of mass higher education the pool of talent from whichthey could recruit has not expanded. Our next task is to consider thetechniques used by organizations to recruit onto the fast track andwhy the vast majority of organizations expressed considerable confid-ence in their select techniques based on an assessment of behaviouralcompetence.


brown & hesketh (2014) - the war for talent

Documents

talent wft

talent edge

talent management

talent wars

knowledge economy

knowledgedriven economy

wft discourse

way companies